Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[nonobaddog]

How quickly after a suspect goes unconscious should a knee upon a neck be released?

Instantly? 1 minute? 5 minutes? 9 minutes 29 seconds?

But if he is actually dead - What difference at this point does it make?

 

[KLB]

How quickly after a suspect goes unconscious should a knee upon a neck be released?

Instantly? 1 minute? 5 minutes? 9 minutes 29 seconds?

Are you saying he was unconscious the whole time he had a knee on him?

 

[JettaKnight]

How quickly after a suspect goes unconscious should a knee upon a neck be released?

Instantly? 1 minute? 5 minutes? 9 minutes 29 seconds?

"42"



(Unit of time not specified.)

 

[T.Lex]

He took some earlier, then apparently took more after the police arrived.

George Floyd may have taken Percocet during fatal arrest: defense

Defense lawyer Eric Nelson said during opening arguments that Floyd’s pals told police that they had trouble waking him up after he took the drugs on May 25, 2020, the day he died while in po…

nypost.com

That was stated during opening arguments.

While lawyers are taught to not say anything during opening arguments that they can't deliver, that's what happens sometimes.

Again, the body cam footage does not appear to reveal that happening.

Are you saying he was unconscious the whole time he had a knee on him?

That little curly thing at the end of the sentences means they were questions.

It isn't clear to me at what point during the 9+ minutes that he was rendered unconscious. It was somewhere between instantly and 9 mins 29 seconds.

These charges are based (from what I can tell) on that length of time after he stopped resisting. It can be difficult (maybe impossible) to tell from video when that was, but it certainly ended when he went unconscious. Unconscious people don't resist. They pretty much just lie there.

 

[KLB]

That was stated during opening arguments.

While lawyers are taught to not say anything during opening arguments that they can't deliver, that's what happens sometimes.

Again, the body cam footage does not appear to reveal that happening.


That little curly thing at the end of the sentences means they were questions.

It isn't clear to me at what point during the 9+ minutes that he was rendered unconscious. It was somewhere between instantly and 9 mins 29 seconds.

These charges are based (from what I can tell) on that length of time after he stopped resisting. It can be difficult (maybe impossible) to tell from video when that was, but it certainly ended when he went unconscious. Unconscious people don't resist. They pretty much just lie there.

Until they aren't anymore or never really were. Floyd tried enough nonsense prior to that to instill doubt about anything he said or did.

 

[T.Lex]

Until they aren't anymore or never really were. Floyd tried enough nonsense prior to that to instill doubt about anything he said or did.

I'm not sure what you mean, but that's ok.

This prosecution should be about Chauvin's actions, not Floyd's.

To put it another way, one can believe the police were justified in acting the way they did to the point where they had Floyd pinned down. Up to that point, the "play stupid games" idea figures prominently.

If he was pushing against officers at the beginning of that pin-down, then they can keep pinning him down. (That's not great police behavior, IMHO, but it is probably justified.)

We know now that at some point after the initial pin down, he REALLY wasn't resisting. That's when Chauvin's neck pin becomes a potential crime. The jury basically has to try and decide when Chauvin should've stopped with the neck pin.

 

[JTScribe]

Of course. The .gov is committed to sacrificing Chauvin to Molech, guilty or not.

When you weigh the fate of one man against a city in flames, can you blame them?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Another Old Bull Detective brings a torpedo right to the midships.

That's got to hurt.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Serious question... why do you think he had his full or even most of his body weight on his knee? I'm doubting that because several times it looked like Chauvin nearly lost his balance when Floyd raised up which makes me think the majority of his body weight was back. Doubly so that Floyd was able to raise at all against 140 lbs with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Also, the autopsy didn't reveal any bruising, which I'm not an ME, but I would think there would be if it was his full or majority of his body weight for that long.

I'm hung up on the fact that the knee was in MPD training... which is still hard for me to grock... but it was, so it's hard to argue that the technique, in itself was a "crime" or "depraved" no matter how bad it looked. But, yeah, 9 minutes, Jesus! FWIW, that seems like this should be about culpable negligence - which from what I read is manslaughter 2 in Minnesota.

But, there is still the open question of whether Floyd was a dead man walking from the meth/fentanyl speedball that he "hooped". Prosecutors indicated in their opening statements that they would show evidence the knee caused death.

Sorry about just now getting back to you on this; busy week.
I wont say that Chauvin's fully body weight, or even most of it was on Floyd's neck. To me, it seems common sense that there was enough of Chauvin's weight on Floyd's neck to cause distress. If I placed a 25, 35, or 45lb kettlebell on your neck, that ain't going to be comfortable. You're goin g to have a hard time telling me that a guy like Chauvin who looks 200Lbs+ isn't transferring a sizeable amount of his weight to the focal point at his knee.
As far as bruising, that really not a gauge of anything, some people bruise easily, some don't; it all depends.

Now, to the training. You say that the knee was in MPD training... or more specifically, the training manual. Yes, that pretty crazy; but here's something from my personal experience. When I was at ILEA we had a manual on defensive tactics. You studied it, and then passed the tests associated with it. Once those tests were passed, I never opened that book again. Instead, we had several "hands on" department trainings throughout the year. If MPD is the same way, and the knee on the neck technique is routinely demonstrated, then I think Chauvin, at least, has a solid defense for using it. If they don't, and specifically warned officers about using the technique, despite it being in the manual (kinda like how blood chokes are viewed today), then that will be problematic.

Floyd may have been a "dead man walking." It has been indicated that he had a fatal amount of dope in his system. The problem with that, is that he's a drug abuser who apparently is no stranger to OD'ing. Again from personal experience, I have witnessed situations where doctors have shrugged their shoulders concerning a highly intoxicated person, and said "I don't know how they still are alive/on their feet." So "fatal" often referenced to effects on the standard person. Floyd may not have been that. If we are to believe that Floyd would have died of an OD, then you have to convince yourself that it was simply a coincidence that he died while he had Chauvin's knee pressed against his neck.

 

[KLB]

I'm not sure what you mean, but that's ok.

This prosecution should be about Chauvin's actions, not Floyd's.

To put it another way, one can believe the police were justified in acting the way they did to the point where they had Floyd pinned down. Up to that point, the "play stupid games" idea figures prominently.

If he was pushing against officers at the beginning of that pin-down, then they can keep pinning him down. (That's not great police behavior, IMHO, but it is probably justified.)

We know now that at some point after the initial pin down, he REALLY wasn't resisting. That's when Chauvin's neck pin becomes a potential crime. The jury basically has to try and decide when Chauvin should've stopped with the neck pin.

How do you know when he "really" stopped resisting? Officers are not mind readers.

I would think the key would be Floyd's cause of death(heart failure). Is there proof the neck pin contributed to the cause of death? If I was a juror, that is what I would want to hear. The rest of the testimony seems to be fluff, playing on emotions.

 

[nonobaddog]

Heart failure will not do as the cause of death. That makes it too hard to blame somebody. They will just have to change that to something more suitable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

When you weigh the fate of one man against a city in flames, can you blame them?

Yes

Officer Chauvin is NOT Jesus Christ and has no responsibility to be crucified either to appease the mob or for anyone else's sins.

 

[KG1]

How do you know when he "really" stopped resisting? Officers are not mind readers.

I would think the key would be Floyd's cause of death(heart failure). Is there proof the neck pin contributed to the cause of death? If I was a juror, that is what I would want to hear. The rest of the testimony seems to be fluff, playing on emotions.

That's what I was about to bring up. Shouldn't the official cause of death play any part in this? Did Chauvin's action play an intentional contributing factor in his death based upon the official cause?

I would have to believe that if it can't be established then I don't see how there can be a conviction.

 

[T.Lex]

How do you know when he "really" stopped resisting? Officers are not mind readers.

I would think the key would be Floyd's cause of death(heart failure). Is there proof the neck pin contributed to the cause of death? If I was a juror, that is what I would want to hear. The rest of the testimony seems to be fluff, playing on emotions.

That's what I was about to bring up. Shouldn't the official cause of death play any part in this? Did Chauvin's action play a contributing factor in his death?

I would have to believe that if it can't be established then I don't see how there can be a conviction.

Yeah, the prosecution will have to show how closing off bloodflow at the carotid/jugular can cause heart failure. It doesn't seem like that will be particularly difficult.

The defense has presented a problematic medical defense. Dying with certain conditions (drugs, occluded arteries, not following orders) is different than dying due to those conditions.

Usually, it isn't enough to say that someone was going to die from X anyway, so when the defendant did Y it didn't really matter. If it was that easy, killing people in hospice wouldn't be a big deal.

If it is a "tie" and equally plausible that it was the neck pin or the drugs that caused his heart to stop, then the prosecution hasn't met their burden.

 

[KLB]

Yeah, the prosecution will have to show how closing off bloodflow at the carotid/jugular can cause heart failure. It doesn't seem like that will be particularly difficult.

The defense has presented a problematic medical defense. Dying with certain conditions (drugs, occluded arteries, not following orders) is different than dying due to those conditions.

Usually, it isn't enough to say that someone was going to die from X anyway, so when the defendant did Y it didn't really matter. If it was that easy, killing people in hospice wouldn't be a big deal.

If it is a "tie" and equally plausible that it was the neck pin or the drugs that caused his heart to stop, then the prosecution hasn't met their burden.

Where is the proof any bloodflow was interfered with? You can't look at a video and say, "look! He is blocking blood flow!". Can is not did. Can to me is reasonable doubt. Drugs CAN cause heart failure. A bad heart can cause heart failure. A 75% blocked artery can cause heart failure. some combination of those things apparently did.

The you have the family autopsy that claims he died of asphyxiation. It would appear that it is going to be hard to say what actually caused his heart failure/death.

edit: Wouldn't beyond a reasonable doubt be way beyond a tie?

 

[JTScribe]

Yes

Officer Chauvin is NOT Jesus Christ and has no responsibility to be crucified either to appease the mob or for anyone else's sins.

I don't disagree with you, but that's where we are. The way things have gone with the press coverage and the political reactions to the last riots, the powers-that-be in Minnesota have set themselves up where there will be riots if Chauvin is only convicted of manslaughter.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't disagree with you, but that's where we are. The way things have gone with the press coverage and the political reactions to the last riots, the powers-that-be in Minnesota have set themselves up where there will be riots if Chauvin is only convicted of manslaughter.

Execute them or give them life in prison for creating the environment they have.

 

[Ark]

Yes

Officer Chauvin is NOT Jesus Christ and has no responsibility to be crucified either to appease the mob or for anyone else's sins.

Amen. In this country, we do not negotiate with terrorists. Chauvin will just be the beginning if we tell the mob that all they have to do to see people strung up is threaten to riot.

 

[T.Lex]

Where is the proof any bloodflow was interfered with? You can't look at a video and say, "look! He is blocking blood flow!". Can is not did. Can to me is reasonable doubt. Drugs CAN cause heart failure. A bad heart can cause heart failure. A 75% blocked artery can cause heart failure. some combination of those things apparently did.

The you have the family autopsy that claims he died of asphyxiation. It would appear that it is going to be hard to say what actually caused his heart failure/death.

edit: Wouldn't beyond a reasonable doubt be way beyond a tie?

Yeah, medical examiner issues can be pretty arcane. The prosecutor will be used to (or should be used to) explaining that kind of thing to the jury. It is pretty normal for people to be confused by how autopsy reports and death certificates are presented.

I've looked at them and the prosecution should be able to clarify that the primary cause of Floyd's heart stopping was the officers pinning him down.

Now, if they muck that up, then that's an acquittal pretty quickly.

Which brings us to your last point - where on the spectrum of proof sits reasonable doubt. That's something the legal system has tried to describe for a very long time. Quantifying it isn't particularly easy, and in practice it seems like morphs into a "know it when you see it" thing.

Here's a version of the framework:
Preponderance of the evidence/more likely than not - that's usually just a little bit over 50%, maybe 50.5%
Clear and convincing - more than that 51%, maybe in the 67% range.
Reasonable doubt - anywhere from 75% to 90% confidence. Frankly, courts (and lawyers) try not to quantify it like that, but try to use phrases like "the level of confidence you would need to have to make a very important decision in your life."

Here are parts of the Indiana pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt. (I have no idea if this matches the Minnesota version, but I suspect it is close.)

The evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt concerning the Defendant’s guilt. But it does not mean that a Defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a fair, actual and logical doubt based upon reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt may arise either from the evidence or from a lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt exists when you are not firmly convinced of the Defendant’s guilt after you have weighed and considered all the evidence.

A Defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or speculation. It is not enough for the State to show that the Defendant is probably guilty. On the other hand, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. The State does not have to overcome every possible doubt.

The State must prove each element of the crime(s) by evidence that firmly convinces each of you and leaves no reasonable doubt. The proof must be so convincing that you can rely and act upon it in this matter of the highest importance.

 

[Ark]

Yeah, medical examiner issues can be pretty arcane. The prosecutor will be used to (or should be used to) explaining that kind of thing to the jury. It is pretty normal for people to be confused by how autopsy reports and death certificates are presented.

I've looked at them and the prosecution should be able to clarify that the primary cause of Floyd's heart stopping was the officers pinning him down.

Now, if they muck that up, then that's an acquittal pretty quickly.

Which brings us to your last point - where on the spectrum of proof sits reasonable doubt. That's something the legal system has tried to describe for a very long time. Quantifying it isn't particularly easy, and in practice it seems like morphs into a "know it when you see it" thing.

Here's a version of the framework:
Preponderance of the evidence/more likely than not - that's usually just a little bit over 50%, maybe 50.5%
Clear and convincing - more than that 51%, maybe in the 67% range.
Reasonable doubt - anywhere from 75% to 90% confidence. Frankly, courts (and lawyers) try not to quantify it like that, but try to use phrases like "the level of confidence you would need to have to make a very important decision in your life."

Here are parts of the Indiana pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt. (I have no idea if this matches the Minnesota version, but I suspect it is close.)

The documented drug use during and immediately before the encounter plus the medical examiner's report constitutes massive reasonable doubt just by themselves IMO and a fair application of the reasonable doubt standard should result in no outcome except full acquittal. The facts demonstrate that Chauvin did not kill Floyd intentionally or otherwise, merely failed to save his life from a medical emergency, and police have SCOTUS case law exempting them from any duty to save others.

Floyd shouldn't have gotten up that morning and decided to spend his day doing as many drugs as he could get his hands on.